SUNITA PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFIER, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYSHRI PRABHASH SHANKARAssessment Year: 2018-19
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.03.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National
Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) (in short Ld. CIT(A)) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2018-19. Sunita Pandey
2
2. In this case, the Assessee during the year under consideration had purchased a property i.e. Flat No. 202, Anita Building No. 9
CHS Ltd, Lokhandwala Township, Akurli Road, Kandivli(E), Mumbai on a consideration of Rs. 41,50,000/- as against the Stamp Duty
Value to the tune of Rs. 45,76,743/-, which resulted into attracting the provisions of u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act as alleged by the AO and making the addition of Rs. 4,26,743/- being differential amount between the value determined by stamp duty valuation Authority and the value declared by the Assessee, vide Assessment Order dated 09-03-2021 u/s 143(3) rws 143 (3A & 3B) of the Act, by the Assessing Officer.
The Ld. Commissioner on appeal, affirmed the aforesaid addition.
Having heard the parties and perusing the material available on record and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties, we observe that admittedly, the differential amount between the stamp duty value and consideration shown by assessee is not more than 10% the "leverage granted" or "safe harbour" tolerance limit for the variation between the actual purchase value (sale consideration) and the official stamp duty valuation (circle rate) of a property as introduced in Sections 50C and 56(2)(x)) itself, which has been held to be retrospective in nature by various Courts and thus the benefit of such leverage as provided under the relevant provisions of the Act as applicable, cannot be denied to the Assessee.
Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstance in total, as the differential amount is not more than 10% of leverage as Sunita Pandey
3
available in the relevant provisions of statue, the addition is deleted.
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2025. (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Disha Raut, Stenographer
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
////
By Order
Dy/Asstt.